Dne 7.4.2014 17:47, Honza Horak napsal(a):
On 04/07/2014 05:31 PM, Paul Howarth wrote:
... snap ...
Does libdb-6 have the same symbol names as libdb-5? If so, there's
probably not a lot of packages that can be built with libdb-6 without
the possibility of causing symbol conflicts with others
On 04/03/2014 09:14 PM, Paul Howarth wrote:
On Thu, 03 Apr 2014 15:53:04 +0200
Honza Horak hho...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/03/2014 11:20 AM, H. Guémar wrote:
Since AGPL is fedora-compliant license, there's no blocker to get
libdb6 into packages collection.
Besides, libdb5 is still critical for
On 07/04/14 14:43, Honza Horak wrote:
On 04/03/2014 09:14 PM, Paul Howarth wrote:
On Thu, 03 Apr 2014 15:53:04 +0200
Honza Horak hho...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/03/2014 11:20 AM, H. Guémar wrote:
Since AGPL is fedora-compliant license, there's no blocker to get
libdb6 into packages
On 04/07/2014 03:51 PM, Paul Howarth wrote:
On 07/04/14 14:43, Honza Horak wrote:
On 04/03/2014 09:14 PM, Paul Howarth wrote:
On Thu, 03 Apr 2014 15:53:04 +0200
Honza Horak hho...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/03/2014 11:20 AM, H. Guémar wrote:
Since AGPL is fedora-compliant license, there's no
On 07/04/14 15:54, Honza Horak wrote:
On 04/07/2014 03:51 PM, Paul Howarth wrote:
On 07/04/14 14:43, Honza Horak wrote:
On 04/03/2014 09:14 PM, Paul Howarth wrote:
On Thu, 03 Apr 2014 15:53:04 +0200
Honza Horak hho...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/03/2014 11:20 AM, H. Guémar wrote:
Since AGPL is
On 04/07/2014 05:31 PM, Paul Howarth wrote:
On 07/04/14 15:54, Honza Horak wrote:
On 04/07/2014 03:51 PM, Paul Howarth wrote:
On 07/04/14 14:43, Honza Horak wrote:
On 04/03/2014 09:14 PM, Paul Howarth wrote:
On Thu, 03 Apr 2014 15:53:04 +0200
Honza Horak hho...@redhat.com wrote:
On
On 04/03/2014 11:08 AM, Jan Staněk wrote:
as Oracle is unlikely to re-license the libdb6 back to GPL,
Just to precise in such license matters, most of the code in older
releases was covered by the Sleepycat license, a copyleft license
generally thought to be compatible with the GPL (version
Hello,
as Oracle is unlikely to re-license the libdb6 back to GPL, I like to
bring up the possibility of the libdb6 package. The idea is that the
current libdb package would still provide the libdb-5+, which is still
under GPL, and the new package would provide the newest, AGPL-ed libdb.
I would
Since AGPL is fedora-compliant license, there's no blocker to get
libdb6 into packages collection.
Besides, libdb5 is still critical for many packages (like RM), until
we get rid of it, I can only agree with your proposal.
Maybe, it's still time to rename the current libdb = libdb5 and get
newer
On 04/03/2014 11:20 AM, H. Guémar wrote:
Since AGPL is fedora-compliant license, there's no blocker to get
libdb6 into packages collection.
Besides, libdb5 is still critical for many packages (like RM), until
we get rid of it, I can only agree with your proposal.
Maybe, it's still time to
On Thu, 03 Apr 2014 15:53:04 +0200
Honza Horak hho...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/03/2014 11:20 AM, H. Guémar wrote:
Since AGPL is fedora-compliant license, there's no blocker to get
libdb6 into packages collection.
Besides, libdb5 is still critical for many packages (like RM), until
we get
11 matches
Mail list logo
